You can get the live values from WDQ:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/tabernacle.html?wdq=claim%5B31%3A%28tree%5B515%5D%5B%5D%5B279%5D%29%5D%20and%20claim%5B6%3A%28claim%5B31%3A5%5D%20and%20claim%5B21%3A6581072%5D%29%5D&props=1082&items=&show=1

You'll have to sort them yourself, though...

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:38 PM Thomas Douillard <thomas.douillard@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I put a link about this on the frwiki chat : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/21_avril_2015#Liste_des_plus_grandes_villes_avec_des_maires_f.C3.A9minies

Let's see if this can shake community a little bit :)

2015-04-21 13:22 GMT+02:00 Markus Krötzsch <markus@semantic-mediawiki.org>:
On 21.04.2015 12:28, Maxime Lathuilière wrote:
nice!

but I can't figure out why Paris (P90
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q90>) and Anne Hidalgo (Q2851133
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2851133>) don't show up in the results
given that:

Q90
   P31: Q515
   P6: Q2851133 (with no P582q)

Q2851133
   P21: Q6581072

what could be wrong?

Interesting. It seems that Paris has no population!

Markus


--

Maxime Lathuilière
maxlath.eu <http://maxlath.eu> - @maxlath
Inventaire <https://inventaire.io> - @inventaire_io
wiki(pedia|data): Zorglub27 <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Zorglub27>


Le 21/04/2015 12:03, Markus Krötzsch a écrit :
On 21.04.2015 11:27, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
Am 21.04.2015 um 00:50 schrieb Markus Krötzsch:
On 20.04.2015 23:47, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
Something seems to be wrong with the order, though. Munich (pop >
1m in all
statements) is listed way after Chemnitz (pop < 300k in all
statements). Any
idea why?

Good catch. My query was too simple (using one "random" population
instead of
the biggest one). Here is a better query, this time even with
populations given:

I still wonder how the old result came about, since the *all*
population values
for Munich are much bigger than *all* the population numbers for
Chemnitz. Even
with picking a random value, how could the order have been reversed?

Good question. I don't know. Maybe there is some issue in Virtuoso
here after all. However, the rest of the order looked sensible to me
even in the old query. It could also be that our (non-live) data had a
temporary glitch that has been fixed on Wikidata in the meantime; one
should check the population values we get with SPARQL to be sure.

Cheers,

Markus





_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l



_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l



_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l